Speaking of Emperors
#11
7HolyCats Wrote:
Quote:Yes, but the question is, who could legitimately claim the Holy Roman Empire (if we are to understand the Empire less as a historical state and more of a concept)?

Neither and both. Three constitutive elements need to be rejoined, it seems.

Ah, so what you are saying is that the Empire was split into three (similar to the previous rending of the Empire into East and West)? Interesting theory, and one that I have never really considered. My own take on the matter has been that the throne of Charlemagne has been vacant since 1806.
Reply
#12
Quote:
But Napoleon wasnt the Revolution. He was a reaction to it, not a restoration of the ancien regime, but certainly a return to ideas of church-state interaction, order, authority, etc

There is a line, it exists, it has supporters, and we cant ignore that he was clearly de facto emperor in terms of his conquest of Europe, and even crowned by the Pope.
I agree that the Revolution was not embodied by Napoleon, but I see no reason to believe that his return to the ideals of the ancien regime was any but political tact. He quite openly regarded the Church as but a means of controlling the people, and loosened the restrictions on Catholics (while, at the same time, preserving many elements of the Revolution, like religious liberty) to appease Rome.
Napoleon's first priority was Napoleon.

Reply
#13
The Title of Holy Roman Emperor must be chosen by lawful authority, by election or hereditary, and approved by the Sovereign Pontiff. So I am very curious as to why people still make the claim to a Title that must be granted by His Holiness to begin with.

And if I were to acknowledge the "Queen" of England, Elizabeth of the House of Windsor, then I would have to acknowledge that the House of Commons can arbitrarily decide who can wear the crown, rather then it be the will of God, the laws laid down, and the Church. The "Bloodless" Revolution was a blasphemy against everything the Monarchy had been. If followed to its natural conclusion then the throne should be done away with for it is not an eternal seat but something that can be changed and moved at the wim of the parliament.
Reply
#14
Quote:Ah, so what you are saying is that the Empire was split into three (similar to the previous rending of the Empire into East and West)? Interesting theory, and one that I have never really considered. My own take on the matter has been that the throne of Charlemagne has been vacant since 1806.

Well, the full imperial throne basically has been. Exactly because it was split into three and so no one of the three can claim the fullness of it, though each can claim one of the essential constituent elements of Charlemagne's legacy (the French element, the German element, and the Austrian element).

Quote:And if I were to acknowledge the "Queen" of England, Elizabeth of the House of Windsor, then I would have to acknowledge that the House of Commons can arbitrarily decide who can wear the crown, rather then it be the will of God, the laws laid down, and the Church. The "Bloodless" Revolution was a blasphemy against everything the Monarchy had been. If followed to its natural conclusion then the throne should be done away with for it is not an eternal seat but something that can be changed and moved at the wim of the parliament.

You will notice here, though, that I dont include the Queen for England (which throne is only royal, not imperial) but rather for India, which possesses, theoretically, one of the Imperial titles, and which was only taken by the British monarchy after everything you are talking about occured. Though, as I've said, I highly prefer the Mughal claim over the colonial British one.

Still, you seem to have some "mystical" view of monarchy, legitimacy, and divine right. Parliamentary channels are totally legitimate, dynasties have changed through many means (including usurpation and deposition) throughout history. The new ruler rules by Divine Right through accomplished fact. Especially after a generation or so, the de facto ruler is de jure. You are acting as if civil authority is from God by some sort of positive institution on His part, but it is more indirect than that.

See the New Advent article (from 1917) on the traditional Catholic theology on the origins of Civil Authority:
Quote:Civil authority is of God, not by any revelation or positive institution
[-]
  •
Reply
#15
7HolyCats Wrote:Pray for these men (and, in two cases, women), if you believe in Primacy and Authority, and rendering unto Caesar.
Include this exiled Roman Catholic King as well:

King of Rwanda Kigeli V Ndahindurwa who from what I have heard attends an independent Latin Mass Chapel somewhere in Washington D.C.

Reply
#16
I'll pray for him too...but this thread was about listing the IMPERIAL thrones and their current head (or pretender).

There are many merely royal and lesser crowns, too many to list.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)